On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Michael Paquier >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Michael Paquier >>>> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Yep, sounds a good thing to do if master requested answer from the >>>>> client in the keepalive message. Something like the patch attached >>>>> would make the deal. >>>> >>>> Isn't it better to do this only when replication slot is used? >>> Makes sense. What about a check using reportFlushPosition then? >> >> Sounds reasonable. Thanks for updating the patch! >> But the patch could not already be applied to the master cleanly >> because c4f99d2 heavily changed the code that the patch also touches... >> I rewrote the patch and pushed it to both master and REL9_4_STABLE. >> Anyway, thanks! > > Is this: > > + if (reportFlushPosition && lastFlushPosition < blockpos && > + walfile != 1) > > really correct? Shouldn't that walfile test be against -1 (minus one)?
Ooops... You're right. That's really mistake... Just fixed and pushed. Thanks! Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
